tv Mc Laughlin Group CBS July 31, 2010 7:30pm-8:00pm EDT
from washington, the mclaughlin group. the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. the mclaughlin group is brought to you by metlife. guarantees for the in life. issue one, wicky leaks gusher. >> try to determine if there is anything in these 90,000 pages of documents that could indeed endanger our forces. this is dumped on us like it was dumped on you all sunday night. >> the dump was really a dump.
like 90,000 pages. the posting on monday features information linking osama bin laden to suicide bombings in afghanistan, a plot to assassinate hamid karzai, and osama's financial dealing with north korea. the afghan war diary so describes made its way on to computer screens available wide, available to one and all. the 90,000 pages span from 2004 to 2009 and were posted on wicky leak. a website dedicated to uncovering secrets. the site relies on user generated contents. it runs on 24 servers in half a dozen countries. all of these servers are engineers to conceal the identity of the posters on the site. but the elusive afghan war
diary poster has been identified as wicky leak founder. australian, jullianne. he described his mission to the german weekly. he quote, loved crushing, unquote. u.s. officials believe the pakistani and afghanny operatives working in tandem locally with u.s. intelligence now face serious threats to their own safety. he claims he withheld publishing over 15,000 pages to doubts over information security. again, apparently he believes that operatives named in the documents have nothing to fear. >> there is a military argument for keeping some information secret. ity leaks website creates danger for human sources who supply information to the cia, is there any other damage from
wicky leaks to u.s. intelligence efforts in afghanistan? >> there's afghans in there, john, who have been named and who have been identified as to where they live. those people are in danger right now of being murdered and their families of being murdered. critics on this panel, i would think, and opponents of the afghan war. this man is a saboteur of american foreign policy and of the war effort and i think this is deeply damaging and the people that did this aught to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. i do believe this, john, there's no question this put a brand-new focus on the afghan war and the key thing about it is, is the revelation in detail of how the pakistani intelligence services are not only working with us, they are also working training and plotting with the afghan taliban to kill american soldiers so this created real problems between us and pakistan and i think it's brought a new focus on the debate. and frankly, it will be to the
president's war effort. >> eleanor, do you agree with that? >> the purpose of these leaks are to narrow the options that the president and the democrats face going forward. clearly he's not making any arguments other than the fact that he is antiwar and he wants this to come out. now he did have the cooperation of somebody in our military who will be prosecuted. and i certainly do regret that if anybody's lives are in danger and our military officials are saying that is the case. we'll see about that. but these documents do show us the inside of a war that is not gone well and they are designed to put pressure on our officials going forward and they alerted the american people to the fact that we are sending billions of dollars, particularly to the pakistanis who are supposed to be our allies. all people in washington in the know understand that the
pakistanis play this double game. the american public is going to look at this and if you're not comfortable with a lot of am -- that's a question the president has to answer in greater satisfaction. >> these secrets reveal corruption in afghanistan. does that further weaken the president's case for being in afghanistan? >> well, i think a couple of things. first of all, it does point to this double game that pakistan has been playing, but that's not exactly news. actually, over the last year and a half, pakistan realized that they, that their regime is under threat by them. they redoubled their efforts in working with the united states on drone attacks, on the border region, trying to take out as many as these fundamentalists as possible and working in conjunction with the united
states. so yes, they shot through with these elements, however, it would be a huge mistake for the united states to back away from pakistan or let that relationship collapse because the only way we are going to make this work is by working as closely with them as possible. the other part of this document that i found fascinating was the fact that it identifies iran as a key supporter of al- qaeda and the taliban, which do against each other. afghanistan is number two. >> pakistan is now the recipient of a relatively new aide package from the u.s. a $7.5 billion commitment that the u.s. made over the next five years. secretary of state, hillary clinton brought with her to pakistan recently $500 million in additional aide to the $7.5 billion commitment. bringing the total package to
$8 billion. this brings the question of how the secretary could convince the american people that at a time of shaky economic conditions at home, spending that kind of was something we really wanted to do. >> this is where the principle terrorist threat to the united states emanates from. we have to prevent afghanistan from falling into a failed state that can then be a bigger danger to us and that costs money. so terrorism on top of an economic challenge would be devastating for us and therefore, we have to stay on our toes and try to prevent that from happening. >> who doesn't like the interview? she did it on television and it was a great interview and she was expressive. about two weeks ago, that's what that is taken from. the main point is that pakistan is essential for afghanistan's survival. you agree with that?
she would bring you over there $500 million and another $7.5 billion in reserve. >> even just putting that way. pakistan is essential for afghanistan survival shows how much we put the cart ahead of the horse. pakistan is the most important country. pakistan is a much bigger, richer, powerful country. what's going on in afghanistan is significant by what's going on in pakistan and that's why we are right to be investing in pakistan, investing in that relationship, time, diplomatic effort, money. aside to whether we should be doing that investment in afghanistan. pakistan has nuclear weapons. pakistan is a powerful country and its triable areas and cities are where al-qaeda is. >> do you think this is all caveat to the general? do the american people understand the hardship of today that they are facing by an economic turn down and if so, do they want to see $7.5
billion going into pakistan? >> if the president makes the case, this is america's security interest. the problem is, when it comes to the afghan war, the president himself is clearly somewhat ambivalent and conflictive. he doesn't want to make his presidency about afghanistan. >> he says the more you put troops in there and you beef it up, the more the taliban commends. maybe if we evaporated the taliban would evaporate too. >> biden believes the same thing. >> what do you think about the agreements of the american people? >> the american people are grieving about the soldiers in afghanistan. they aren't sitting home fretting about the $500 million check to pakistan and what this president has to worry about is a growing antiwar sentiment if
he doesn't more fully explain why we're in afghanistan and he is also, i think the pressure on him to stick to that july 2011 deadline to begin to withdraw in a meaningful way from this country. >> the first one is going to be in december. the december review is going to take place. that is going to be dramatic and my guess is, biden will weigh in again. he's already said he does not believe there will be an increase in troops. 100,000 topped out -- i don't think president obama's heart and soul are in this war in afghanistan. the biden statement is all wired, you know that. >> i think president obama is going to turn this around and i think he's going to start out. i think he's going to stay with his july deadline. >> and the leaks actually help him adhere to that original deadline because it makes the argument how difficult, what an uphill battle this is. >> corruption. >> imagine that $7.5 billion
over a five-year commitment. john kerry fought for that and he is trying to fend off a lot of fellow democrats who are saying this is not worth it. now you have some republicans also stepping up their criticism of this war. the american people will support an overseas intervention if it is perceived we are winning. we also want to see a commander in chief -- if the commander in chief is going to double down on the troop commitment, then they want to see their commander in chief not do the policy of surge and withdrawal. commit to it and win it. >> turn upside down. >> on what? afghanistan? >> more people want to get out and want to stay. >> right. >> more people think we are losing than think we are winning. >> right, get out of there. exit question, five years from now, will wicky leak kill congressional support for the afghanistan war? five months from now? >> five years or five months? >> what did i say, five years? >> five months. >> it's already damaged
support and i think it will further accelerate the deterioration. you have over 100 democrats now voting against and a dozen republicans voted against funding the war in afghanistan. >> makes the politics fascinating, but a lot more democrats voted against the war funding last week and the republicans had to carry the water on that one and they are beginning to get divided in their ranks. five months from now, they aren't going to pull the plug on funding. >> a big document dump, a big leak like this, you ask who benefits. president obama does benefit because he does want to stick to his original time line. you have to ask who got screwed here. general david patraeus who accepted a demotion to oversee the afghan war and this made his job harder and that's where presidential lipscombs in. >> wait a minute. and conversely is mccrystal now looking pretty good? >> well, i don't know
relatively speaking, but patraeus' job has been made more difficult and that's where the job comes -- > he started to look good, because we could be over there for 100 years. >> real conflict is not going to be with congress. congress couldn't cut off a funding for the iraq war. obama will have to -- the battle will be between the white house and the uniform military. that was the struggle last year. that's going to be the struggle. it's a fascinating human drama when you think about it. david patraeus against president obama. >> the answer is, you are all partially correct. when we come back, arizona when we come back, arizona annulment. the forecast is full of ifs. retirement these days, if i'm too exposed to downturns. if i'll go through my savings too fast. to help you feel more confident consider putting a portion of your savings in a metlife variable annuity. when the market goes up, it gives your assets a potential to grow. while protecting you if the market goes down with a steady stream of income.
you know, the guys who always do a super job. well, it is. just go to the verizon® yellow pages. and look for a business with the superguarantee® shield. you'll get the job done right, or we'll step in and help to make it right. so, protect yourself with the superguarantee® from supermedia. on its way-- the new verizon® yellow pages with larger, easier to read print. issue two, arizona annulment. >> u.s. district judge, susan bolton issued a temporary injunction this week blocking the most controversial parts of
arizona's proposed new immigration law. it was mere hours before the law was due to take effect, handing a victory to the obama administration. judge bolton barred arizona police from enforcing key provisions of the statute voted into law by the arizona legislature about three months ago. bolton wants time for her court to hear additional arguments regarding the statute. specifically whether or not it infringes on the u.s. congresses and the white house's role in immigration matters. judge bolton says determining the immigration status of every person who was arrested burdens lawfully president aliens because their liberty will be restricted. bolton declared that officers would not be allowed to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrant. quote, there is a substantial
likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new law. arizona officials promptly appealed judge bolton's injunction to the u.s. 9th circuit court of appeals. legal experts say the case will ultimately have to be decided by the supreme court. arizona governor says in effect, blame the feds. notably barack obama. governor brewer apparently sees the arizona law as hinging on the criteria of reasonable suspicion. this is the scenario sited by arizona law advocates. an officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. the car is over loaded. nobody has identification. the driver in his manner acts evasively. the car and occupants are in a smuggling corridor. with the new law in place, the occupants are detained while the attending officer contacts u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. ice, to check on the immigration status of the
passengers. if ice reports that the suspects are indeed illegal aliens, some legal action is taken which may include arrest. president obama has denounced the law as racial profiling and the justice department filed a suit s onthat the u.s. constitution states that the naturalization process is a federal, not a state responsibility. quote, article 1 section 8. the u.s. constitution states that the naturalization process is a federal, not a state responsibility, quote, to estaand uniform rule of naturalization. >> question, did the justice department primarily base its case on uniformity or preemption under article 6 of the constitution? >> the justice department's case was based primarily on preemption, that the federal government brought in exclusive authority to regulate immigration. a couple problems with this. this judge who decided this and made this ruling was
essentially hallucinating to justify her opinion. she con flatted federal law with federal enforcement policies or as it happens, lack there of. what she was saying in this decision is if the feds refuse to enforce federal immigration law, the states can't do it either because it would transgress the federal policy of nonenforcement, which is insane. her decision makes no legal or rational sense. it's going to go up to the 9th circuit and up to the supreme court and on the issue of preemption, both the 9th circuit, which is the most liberal circuit in the land and the most overturned, they backed up a 2007 arizona law that requires the state to go in at the point of employment and say that are women, they could easily be men. you know, the judge's ruling is well within the bounds of reason. it's a temporary injunction. she is not really judging on the merits, but she essentially accepted the obama administration's case that this
is probably unconstitutional and so it will go its way on up through the various jurisdictions. this really isn't about the legal niceties. it's not about the substance. this is now a political issue. it's a wedge issue and the republicans think they have gotten christmas in july because it has gotten all the people stirred up. we don't vote until november and there are a lot of other people who are going to get stirred up. i think this, in the political mix, this adds energy. i think on the democratic and progressive side. >> disaster? >> not in the long-term, certainly. >> look, preemption, they threw out sanctuary city policies, which they got in san francisco. this puts a focus on the illegal immigration thing. nine states put in briefs along with arizona. mexico had a brief with the democratic position. obama did not even talk about it after the decision came in.
mccain was talking about it. this is going to be a blazing hot issue. but some of these things sort of fade, but if this thing keeps coming back, there's no doubt who benefits. >> it will look bad for the democrats in 2010 when you will have an electorate, which is older and white and that is the republican party. the republican party's dream, the whole point was, he had done so well with the hispanic vote. turning the republican party from something other than a party of aging white people is fading very, very fast. that's very good for the democrats. >> he is exactly right. in the long-term, it is the end of the political party. >> talking about latinos entering arizona. >> that's right. >> where were the other illegals coming from? >> well -- >> other parts of the world.
how many illegal immigrants do they have in arizona today? exit question, is the power pengulum moving? >> dramatically and heavily. even the nullification and things like that. there's talk in tennessee of so session, john. >> we've had this battle before. remember george wallace in the schoolhouse door and the states rights people will lose once again. >> what do you think? >> you look at polling on the arizona law, 65% of the american people say that they would like their own state to pass a law and enforce it just like the arizona law. you mentioned how many other people other than mexicans? which is actually a term that otm, this is a national security issue because after 9/11, there have been thousands and thousands of otm's coming from iran, coming from iraq,
afghanistan, pakistan, saudi arabia, that are associated with al-qaeda. now we know that hezbollah is working with the drug cartels. it's a serious thing. >> is it as bad as she says it is? >> absolute nonsense. we have a larger border with canada. almost completely undefended. you wanted to come across the border, it would be so much easier to come across from canada. >> people from arizona watching you are booing you now. they are booing you. >> go ahead, boo me. >> and there are a lot of other states -- >> i don't come to my moral opinion based on the public opinion. >> we'll be right back with predictions.